Module 8.3: Emerging Megacities Hyderabad and...
Transcript of Module 8.3: Emerging Megacities Hyderabad and...
1
Module 8.3: Emerging Megacities Hyderabad and Bangalore
Role Name Affiliation
National Coordinator
Subject Coordinator
Prof Sujata Patel Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator
Ashima Sood Surya Prakash
Indian School of Political Economy, Pune Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi
Content Writer Ashima Sood
Indian School of Political Economy, Pune
Content Reviewer
Surya Prakash Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi
Language Editor
Ashima Sood
Indian School of Political Economy, Pune
Technical Conversion
Module Structure Sections and headings
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Bangalore Bangalore and Bengaluru: Two cities
Local and corporate economies
Speculative governance in Bangalore
Section 3: Hyderabad The making of Cyberabad
Urban Governance in Hyderabad
Growth in the new millennium
In Brief References
Description of the Module Items Description of the Module
Subject Name Sociology Paper Name Sociology of Urban Transformation
Module Name/Title Emerging Megacities
2
Module Id 8.3 Pre Requisites Objectives To situate the significance of the
megacities of Bangalore and Hyderabad To position the contemporary growth
trajectory of Bangalore and Hyderabad against the historic context
To empirically ground the major paradigms that have emerged to explain urban growth in Bangalore, such as occupancy urbanism and speculative urbanism
To trace the major thematics of the literature on Hyderabad
Key words (5-6 words/phrases)
Bangalore, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Speculative urbanism, State re-scaling, Occupancy urbanism
Section 1: Introduction South Indian boomtowns -- Hyderabad and Bengaluru (erstwhile
Bangalore) -- represent an important arc in contemporary Indian urbanization.
Bengaluru, growing faster over the 2001-2011 interregnum than Hyderabad,
housed an over 8.5 million, ie, 85 lakh population. Starting at a similar base of
about 5.7 million residents in 2001, Hyderabad grew to a population of over 7.6
million, or 76 lakhs.
These South Indian Information Technology (IT) hubs offer valuable
comparative insight into the forces shaping megacity growth in post-
liberalization India. But they share deeper historical similarities. Unlike the four
biggest metropolises -- New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras -- both
Bangalore and Hyderabad were situated in princely states. Bangalore fell under
Wodeyar-ruled Mysore state and Hyderabad under the Asaf Jahi Nizam’s
territories. However, both Hyderabad and Bangalore also played host to a
powerful colonial presence, which in both cases spatially bifurcated these cities.
Indeed, in the case of Bangalore, it was the British city -- Bangalore Cantonment -
- which lent its name to the post-colonial Karnataka state capital. So did
Secunderabad leave an indelible impression on Hyderabad’s character.
Over the course of the last century, however, the indigenous cities
emerged triumphant. In Bangalore case, this resurgence was represented in
3
symbolic terms by its renaming as Bengaluru. In Hyderabad, too, the axis of
growth has decisively shifted back to the west, from the eastern end of
Secunderabad. Through the course of this module, we flag other similarities and
contrasts in the post-Independence growth of these cities.
This module approaches these two cases through the analytical lens of the
existing scholarship on these metropolises. It asks: what themes and questio ns
have preoccupied scholars who have written about these two cities? And what
similarities and contrasts do these scholarly frameworks illuminate? Which
aspects of the post-liberalization mega-city do they bring to light?
The next section focuses on the case of Bangalore, and the following
section then turns to Hyderabad.
Section 2: Bangalore The scholarship on Bangalore has contributed several important theorizations to
the broader literature on cities in the Global South. Most important have been
the rubrics of occupancy urbanism (Module 4.3) and speculative urbanism
(Module 1.5). This section lays out first the broad outlines of Bangalore’s history,
focusing particularly on issues of spatial inequality discussed by Janaki Nair in
her celebrated 2005 monograph Promise of the Metropolis. It then traces how
these patterns of urban dualism have evolved in contemporary Bangalore by
drawing on the work of Solomon Benjamin and Bhuvaneswari Raman. Finally, it
examines the intensifying trends towards speculative forms of governance and
their repercussions on life in the city.
Bangalore and Bengaluru: Two cities
In Promise of the Metropolis, a definitive history of Bangalore, Janaki Nair argues
that like many Indian cities, Bangalore’s is a tale of two cities – Bengaluru, an
indigenous settlement that dates back five centuries and Bangalore, a
Cantonment that dates to the British era (Nair 2005). It was only in 1949 that
these two halves came together for administrative purposes in Bangalore
Municipal Corporation.
The historic city owes its origins to the fortified settlement, marked by temples
and towns, established by Telugu chieftain Kempegowda in the sixteenth
4
century. For nearly 250 years, the new settlement witnessed little growth,
hamstrung partly by the lack of a readily available water supply. In response, the
city’s rulers embarked on a project of tank construction, bequeathing on
Bengaluru the moniker of “Kalyananagara, city of kalyanis or tanks” (Nair 2005,
31). As Module 6.6 shows, these tanks remain central to Bangalore’s unique
urban ecology. Indeed, Nair (2005) argues that supply of water to the old and
new towns undergirded the legitimacy of rule even after the conquest of the city
by the British.
The two cities diverged along many dimensions big and small: from their
economic bases, to their spatial layout to the nature of inter-group relations.
How did the repercussions of these differences play out in the spheres of the
city’s economy, spatial form and relations between ethnic groups? The next few
sub-sections explore these differences.
Economy:
Since the time of Tipu Sultan and before, Bengaluru was a major textile
manufacturing centre, producing a range of cotton and silk cloth for export and
local consumption. Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan later encouraged a thriving
armaments industry.
With the advent of British rule, the first half of the 19 th century saw significant
deindustrialization as the markets for Bangalore’s fine textiles dried out. Its
manufacturing base was only partially revived during the two World Wars with
state support. The city was converted into an inland entrepot by its colonial
rulers. The economy of the British Cantonment “Civil and Military Station”
revolved, with few exceptions, around trade and services (Nair 2005).
Ethnic diversity and strife: The history of Bengaluru was inextricably tied with the history of its
shrines, which were central to city building in India since medieval times. Yet,
even as successive waves of temple patrons, mosque, and church builders
remade the city, relatively little overt conflict marked Bangalore’s
transformations till well into the 20th century (Nair 2005).
The old city was home to a diversity of communities and linguistic groups.
Its composite culture, albeit dominated by Kannada and a lesser extent Urdu,
was woven through by immigrants from across India and elsewhere. In contrast,
5
in the Cantonment, English was the language of power. The influx of Tamil and
Telugu migrants as well as Urdu speakers relegated Kannada to relative
marginality in these areas. In response, a more self-conscious interest in
Kannada preservation and propagation became the hallmark of linguistic
identity in colonial and post-colonial Bangalore (Nair 2005).
Did Bengaluru’s traditions of pluralism provide a bulwark against ethnic
conflict? On the one hand, it was not until 1928 that the first Hindu Muslim riots
broke out around a displaced Ganesha shrine. On the other hand, Nair (2005, 72)
argues that these riots revealed the fragility of the ritual ties that bound
communities together. Not long after, the Cantonment also witnessed riots
between the two communities in 1931.
Nair’s account makes clear the multiple layers of social segregation
fostered by the advent of British city-making practices. The period between 1920
and 1940 saw steady growth in caste associations in Bangalore city(Nair 2005).
New philanthropic hostels emerged to cater to the lodging needs of college-going
male migrants of specified castes – whether Brahmin, Nagarth Lingayat,
Vokkaliga or later Vysya and Virasaiva.
It is no surprise then the public sphere that emerged showed similar
segmentation. While establishments such as the Hindu Coffee Club and the
Modern Hindu Hotel facilitated the rise of a public sphere where new ideas of
citizenship and nation building circulated, they ultimately played host to an
exclusively male and Brahmin clientele. Even avowedly liberal associations such
as the Gokhale Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA) remained limited by their
membership to a Brahminical and conservative approach to the challenges of
nation building.
Paradoxically, although exclusionary clubs and hotels catering to
Europeans also existed in the Cantonment area, the Cantonment also allowed
freer and more anonymous forms of social intercourse. Yet, the divide between
the city and the cantonment remained the most durable form of segregation, and
one that created other social fissures in its wake (Nair 2005).
Spatial form:
The Cantonment from its beginnings epitomized the aesthetics and social
agendas of colonial planning. The spatial division of groups, whether European
6
or Indian, was a key component of these plans. In contrast to Bengaluru, the
European areas were subject to strict zoning and separation of land uses.
European officials lived in spacious compounds, designed to emphasize the
distance between the ruler and the ruled, even as the native areas within the
Cantonment resembled the spatial patterns of the native city.
To take another striking difference, the Indian city favoured the
pedestrian, but the Cantonment’s thoroughfares were geared towards meeting
the needs of automobile traffic and coordinated mobility.
As Module 3.2 contended, colonial notions of planning proved triumphant
in pre- and post-Independence Bangalore, like in other Indian cities. A major
impetus for spatial planning came from the plague of 1898. By the 19th century,
all extensions to the city were based on the grid plan. In addition to layouts such
as Basavangudi and Malleswaram, the native areas of the Cantonment were also
reconstructed on new lines. The Knoxpet area opposite the Cantonment railway
station became in 1923 the site of an unprecedented planning intervention into
working class habitation, with the construction of Murphy Town, consisting of
both double and single houses.
Nair (2005) suggests that the physical form of the new city may have
exacerbated patterns of segregation in comparison to the old city, where the
basis of co-living was not caste per se but community and occupation. Indeed,
caste and class exclusion was central to the design and evolution of areas such as
Basavangudi and Malleswaram.
Against the backdrop of this reconfigured urban consciousness, British
plans to return of the Cantonment to Mysore State drew protests from groups
loyal to the British – the Anglo-Indians, as well as some Muslim and commercial
Hindu communities. Interestingly the Kannada speaking Muslims of the city and
the Urdu-speaking Muslims of the Cantonment found themselves on opposite
ends of these protests, with the former fiercely loyal to the Wodeyars of Mysore
and the latter aligned with the British.
Post-Independence, the amalgamation and creation of the unified
municipal corporation for Bangalore did not so much erase the legacy of urban
dualism as displace the dichotomy onto different spheres and spatialities. These
fissures are examined in the next section.
7
Local and corporate economies
Placing the emergence of scholarship on Bangalore city within the broader
evolution of urban studies in India, Nair (2005) notes that the early post-
colonial decades saw relatively little scholarship on the city. However, a new
resurgence in Bangalore scholarship began in 2000 with the coming together of
new scholars and collaborations. Several authors, Nair among them (2005, 20)
explored how the “ideas of citizenship evolved as the city was reconfigured in
response to the claims of the nation, the region and global capital.”
One of the most influential of theorizations to emerge from scholarship on
Bangalore has been Benjamin’s conceptualization of “occupancy urbanism”.
While Module 4.3 examines the occupancy urbanism thesis in detail, this section
aims to lay out its empirical grounding in contemporary Bangalore. Benjamin did
not articulate the concept of “occupancy urbanism” till a 2008 paper, but the
thesis owed its empirical foundations to an extended multi-year study. Benjamin
and Raman (2001) include richly detailed case studies of Bangalore
neighbourhoods such as Valmiki Nagar, KR Market and the BTM Layout.
A key insight of this work was that the burgeoning small and tiny
enterprises in sectors such as silk weaving, garments manufacture as well as
services, were almost entirely concentrated in non-masterplanned areas
(Benjamin 2000). This had two major repercussions: first, it allowed a mixing of
land uses in a manner that would not be possible in formally planned areas.
Using the case of Valmiki Nagar, an unplanned neighbourhood in north
Bangalore, Benjamin (2000, 44) argued that such ‘“messy” settings are critically
important for employment generation. They allow enterprises to start up and to
find relatively cheap land with loose land use regulations.”
A second repercussion of the lack of planning was that land and
infrastructure issues become politicized. These “local economies” therefore
evolved in a symbiotic relationship with local governance processes embodied in
municipal politics. Councillors and the lower bureaucracy function as mediating
agencies in building ground-level alliances to advance the interests of actors. It
should be evident
In contrast to such local economies stood “corporate economies”,
consisting of masterplanned sites such as “’enclaved’ high-income
8
neighbourhoods… of south and south-east Bangalore, … the corporate business
centre of MG Road, and the exclusive urban design mega-projects such as the
information technology park” (Benjamin 2000, 45). These economies were
associated with a very different mode of institutional governance, one that was
mediated by state government parastatal agencies, including development
authorities such as the Bangalore Development Authority.
Benjamin (2000) contrasted three areas to illustrate the ways in which
this division manifested itself in Bangalore. In areas such as Mysore Road and
Yashwantpur in west and north-west Bangalore, respectively, dense local
economies predominated. The strength of local alliances made efforts at land
acquisition for masterplanning a non-starter. But on the other hand, “the diverse
tenure regime allow[ed] for even very poor groups to establish themselves in
locations that provide[d] jobs and livelihood opportunities” (Benjamin 2000, 47).
Urban space in South Bangalore, on the other hand, was produced by land
acquisition and masterplanning. Since masterplanning involved strict land use
regulation, there were few mixed use spaces to support the rich diversity of
tenures and livelihoods seen in west and north Bangalore.
Yet, masterplanned areas comprised only about 20% of Bangalore’s area,
according to Benjamin’s (2000) estimate. In this scenario, megaprojects in the
non-masterplanned areas, such as flyovers and New Market in the KR Market
area, presented a more potent threat to local economy clusters. These projects
were part of a larger trend towards “the promotion of large development
projects in both central city areas and also the urban periphery” (P 51). As
examples, Benjamin considered the then new international airport, flyovers and
ring road highway construction, as well as the International Technology Park.
What united these projects was the role of state government parastatal bodies,
as well as increasing appeal to overtly “non-political” technocratic expertise in
formulating and realizing these plans.
The growing prominence of these “corporate economies” forms the focus
of another leading paradigm to emerge from Bangalore studies: Michael
Goldman’s work on speculative urbanism. We examine the transformations
underlined by Goldman in the next section.
9
Speculative governance in Bangalore
If Bangalore was pensioner’s paradise in the early decades after
Independence, the trajectory of the city in the new millennium, Nair (2005, 19)
argues, makes visible the assertive redefinition of “urban space by capitalism”.
This reconfiguration is indeed characteristic of the metropolitan growth model
of both Hyderabad and Bangalore.
How has capitalism configured urban space in Bangalore? One set of
answers comes from Michael Goldman’s model of “speculative urbanism”, which
bears a close kinship to David Harvey’s analysis of the speculative tendencies
inherent in “entrepreneurial governance”. Goldman (2011, 234) argues that the
pre- IT boom Bangalore did not display the pathologies of the “third world”
megacity, “teeming with uncontrollable violence, wrenching poverty, and fetid
living”. Quite to the contrary, late 1980s Bangalore was a quintessentially
“middle class town”, buoyed by an economy organized around public sector
enterprises in “high-end” research and manufacturing, in sectors such as
“aeronautics, space research, radar and remote sensing, military equipment, and
factory tool-making” (p 235). Enterprises such as BEL (Bharat Electronics Ltd.),
HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.), ITI (Indian Telephone Industries), HMT
(Hindustan Machine Tools), BHEL (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.), and Mysore
Industrial and Testing Laboratory, and the Indian Institute of Science provided
secure and unionized employment, high quality housing and public amenities –
schools, hospitals, parks and community centres – and formed the basis of a
vibrant middle class.
These were the conditions that attracted both Indian and multinational IT
firms to set up shop in Bangalore, often in the previously undeveloped southern
and eastern peripheries of the city. And paradoxically, it was greater integration
into global capital circuits that led to a proliferation of megacity problems –
rising socio-spatial inequality, growing slums and public services stretched to
their limits - in a city that had previously remained immune to them.
Goldman (2011, 236) contends that much of the blame for this botched
“worlding” process goes to the new coalitions of actors that came to dominate
urban planning and policy in Bangalore – “the Confederation of Indian Industry
and NASSCOM, the software industry’s chamber of commerce), professionals
10
from the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and bilateral aid agencies,
Indians living abroad, internationally connected NGOs, and India’s elite urban
bureaucrats and officials”.
The growing power of this coalition was also accompanied by the
weakening, through a variety of channels, of the “localized set of political
manoeuvres” (Goldman 200, 239), documented by Benjamin and discussed in
the last sub-section. What were processes associated with this attenuation? First,
work by Kamath, Baindur and Rajan (2008) suggests how the expansion of the
city to incorporate “seven surrounding towns and 110 villages” led to a dilution
of representation (Goldman 2011, 239), as these urban local bodies were
dissolved into the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP): where once
every elected official represented 300 citizens, the ratio was now closer to
1:30,000 (Goldman 2011, 239).
This process of attrition of electoral democratic decision-making was also
accompanied by the establishment and empowerment of parastatals, which
controlled basic services and were increasingly beholden to loans from IFIs.
Another strand of the depoliticization of urban governance in Bangalore
could be traced to the emergence of expert commissions and taskforces, such as
most famously the “Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF), a fifteen-member
nominated body of elites from the IT and biotechnology industries” (Goldman
2011, 240). Inaugurated in 1999, the Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF), was
a “collaborative movement” that went beyond the municipal channels for
participative governance provided by the 74th Constitutional Amendment to
apply a corporate governance regime to the city (Nair 2005: 15). Interestingly,
Nair (2005) connects the emergence of the BATF to the model of citizenship
proposed by M Visveswaraya, Mysore’s “engineer-statesman” – “citizens as
stockholders of the city corporation.” These tendencies were exacerbated by the
vocal presence of elite citizen groups (Module 6.4). Goldman (2011) argues that
taken together, these three trends constituted the privatization of government
functions and their transfer to non-elected agencies.
These trends converged most consequentially in three megaprojects –
“the Bangalore–Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC), the IT corridor, and the
11
Bangalore International Airport and its surrounding development area (BIAL)”
(Goldman 2011, 241). Here parastatals such as the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board (KIADB) took on the task of acquiring, developing and
transferring land for real estate development. The three megaprojects represent
a remarkable expansion of Bengaluru, to encompass an area larger than the city
limits in 2007 (Goldman 2011, 242). They’re thus key components of the city’s
growth dynamic. The BMIC plans, for example, five new privately built townships
and multiple industrial parks on the stretch between Bangalore and Mysore.
A major cog in Bangalore’s urban transformation has been its IT sector. As
Goldman (2011) explains, critical to the growth of IT firms such as Infosys is the
vast gap in wages between American and Indian workers. By paying Indian
workers a fraction of what they earned, these firms were able to achieve
fabulous profits, which they then reinvested in real estate, in the form of “high
value land banks”. Thus, according to Goldman, even the productive energies of
the new services economies have been diverted to the cause of real estate
development, the pivotal economic activity in an era of speculative urbanism.
While speculative urbanism as thoery is examined in detail in Module 1.5,
this module has focused on what it tells us about contemporary Bangalore. In
many ways, Goldman’s emphasis on the circuits of global capital that have made
Bangalore stands in contrast to Benjamin’s attention to local eco nomies. Other
work in this vein such as Halbert and Rouanet (2014, 2015) adds empirical detail
and complication to this contrast by highlighting the role played by local
developers in “filtering away” some of the risks associated with the “landing” of
global finance capital in Bangalore’s real estate markets.
These authors argue nonetheless that the global “investment frenzy”
(Halbert and Rouanet 2015, 12) “has led to conflict-ridden urban development”.
On the one hand, the availability of finance capital has helped ramp up land
acquisition and the scale of construction projects manifold within Bangalore and
in other Karnataka cities. Among the beneficiaries have been builders such as
Prestige and Sobha. The result has been a spatial reconfiguration, and also
increasing fragmentation of the city between 2005-11 (Halbert and Rouanet
2015, 23), as areas such as Whitefield or Electronic City have seen a rapid
“transformation… from village to edge city”.
12
Section 3: Hyderabad With a population of over 76 lakhs per Census of India 2011, Hyderabad
is expected to grow to a behemoth of 1.9 crores by 2041 (Das 2015, 48).
Covering an area of over 7000 square kilometre, Hyderabad’s Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) is now the second largest urban development
area in the country after Bangalore (Sood 2016).
Although the area witnessed human settlement for a millennium or more,
the historic city of Hyderabad traces its establishment on the Musi River to 1591
and the reign of the Qutb Shahi kings. By the time of India’s Independence,
however, the city had gained eminence as the capital of the princely state of
Hyderabad under the Asaf Jahi Nizam dynasty (Das 2015). As in Bangalore, the
construction of large tanks was critical to the growth of early Hyderabad. Chief
among these were “Hussain Sagar, Mir Alam, Afzal Sagar, Jalpalli, Ma-Sehaba
Tank, Talab Katta, Osmansagar and Himayatsagar” (Ramachandraiah and Prasad
2004, 5).
Overall, Hyderabad’s growth path in pre-Independence days seems
ostensibly less typical of the dualism wrought by colonial urban planning.,
although the divergence between levels of public services provision in the
colonial city and the “native” city that was so salient in cities ruled by the British
did found some echo in the Secunderabad Cantonment’s distinct identity and
mode of governance. Not until 1960 did the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
come to subsume both Hyderabad and Secunderabad cantonment areas within
one overarching local government (Das 2015). Even today, the army cantonment
areas remain outside the jurisdiction of the present-day Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation.
In 1956, Hyderabad city was declared the state capital of the newly
formed state of Andhra Pradesh, created through the merger of the Nizam’s
Telugu-speaking territories with the Telugu areas of former Madras Presidency
(Das 2015). Even more than Bangalore, Hyderabad in the post-Independence
period emerged as a higher education hub for the nation and the region. In
addition to the central University of Hyderabad, which falls under the central
government’s remit, the city is also home to Osmania University, founded in
1917 in the Nizami era. It has also benefited from a large public sector presence
13
that has spurred a boom in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors (Seminar
2009).
Over the years, the growth in employment opportunities brought in a new
wave of migrants from coastal Andhra who also “entered into the business of
cinema production and distribution, education and print and electronic media
sector” (Das 2015, 49). A division emerged at this time between the urbanscapes
of the new areas, populated by the new arrivals – “wide roads, shopping and
trading complexes along with new residential areas” – and the older parts of the
city and Secunderabad area, which housed the long-standing residents of the
city.
These differences were mirrored in the larger state polity. Overtime, the
cultural and class chasm between the Telugu speakers of the former Nizam’s
territories, where Hyderabad was located, and the wealthier Telugu speakers of
the former Madras Presidency grew wide enough to lead to the bifurcation of the
state of Andhra Pradesh. Telangana retained Hyderabad, while the now
truncated Andhra Pradesh committed to building a new capital in the vicinity of
Vijayawada, in Amaravati. Nonetheless, Hyderabad continues as the temporary
capital of Andhra Pradesh for the next decade.
Despite its unique “Ganga Jumni tehzeeb” and confluence of cultures (Latif
2009), Hyderabad gained fame more as an economic and political powerhouse
for its region. Hyderabad, Rangareddy and Medak districts, which comprise the
major chunk of the peri-urban expanses of the HMDA, together contributed 55%
of the state of Andhra Pradesh state’s revenues in 2012-13 right before
bifurcation (Rao 2013, 39). For the new state of Telangana, the corresponding
share of capital revenues contributed by the three districts to the state revenues
is even starker at about 80%. As Das (2015) notes, Hyderabad represents a
primate city for the state, with a size advantage so great that it creates a virtuous
cycle that spurs faster growth, at the expense of the smaller urban centres.
If Bangalore’s explosive growth trajectory in the late 1980s owed a debt
to the initiative of the IT industry, Hyderabad’s emergence as an IT hub has been,
to a far greater extent, a state-led endeavor. In the aftermath of the International
Monetary Fund-mandated liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991, Andhra
Pradesh was one of the first states to seize the opportunities offered by the new
14
economic reforms regime (Kennedy 2007). Das (2015) and Bunnell and Das
(2010) recount how a visit to Southeast Asia – particularly Kuala Lumpur’s
Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) was the inspiration for the then Chief Minister
Chandrababu Naidu to inaugurate Hyderabad Information Technology and
Engineering Consultancy (HITEC) City on the western outskirts of Hyderabad. In
2001, Cyberabad Development Area was established to support the development
of an IT-focused enclave around and beyond HITEC City (Das 2015, Kennedy
2007).
HITEC City thus represents a clear articulation of the city as growth
engine strategy (Kennedy 2007). Spatially, it heralded an ongoing era of rapid
westward advance for Hyderabad’s growth (Maringanti 2013b). Even though
Cyberabad Development Area receives an implicit subsidy from Hyderabad, in
the form of the housing and education the latter provides for Cyberabad’s
workforce, the relationship between Cyberabad enclave and 400-year old
Hyderabad has remained ambivalent (Maringanti 2013b).
The making of Cyberabad Kennedy (2007, 2014) has detailed the patterns of spatial restructuring
that shaped the development of Cyberabad. Its earliest outpost -- HITEC City --
represented a “premium networked space” (Graham 2000) – focused on the
creation of “high performance infrastructures”, it was globally connected, but
largely disconnected from local economies (Kennedy 2014:131).
“World-class” infrastructure provision is a key component of the city-
centric growth strategy set into motion by the Chandrababu Naidu government.
Its other major element was a targeted policy framework for the IT sector, which
provided a variety of tax incentives and subsidies. The panoply of incentives also
included two that had a direct spatial correlates: rebate on land, and exemption
from zoning regulations. These exemptions applied also to private and public IT
parks, which were also subject to regulations on infrastructure provision:
“minimum area of 4000 square meters, provision of telecommunication
infrastructure such as optic fibre connectivity, and access to the satellite earth
station”, “100% on-site power back-up… air-conditioning and parking, as well as
24-h security” (Kennedy 2007, 99).
15
Comprised of three major complexes – Cyber Towers, the first to be completed in
1998, Cyber Gateway (2001) and Cyber Pearl (2004) – HITEC gave a concrete
spatiality to this policy thrust. Two features of this project are important: first
was the key role of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, a
state government parastatal. Provisioning the land for private investors to set up
in HITEC City by entering into public-private partnerships with the private
developers, and functioning as the “deemed local body” for the HITEC City area –
through these functions, the APIIC was key to realizing the entrepreneurial
vision of Naidu’s Hyderabad, but as part of a broader architecture constituted
around the Cyberabad Development Area (Kennedy 2014).
Second was the way in which public and private actors came together in
the making of HITEC City. Not only was HITEC City built through a public-private
partnership model, with APIIC providing the land and the private promoter the
capital and management, as much as 50% of the land in HITEC City was set aside
for private companies to build on (Kennedy 2007).
Advancing this growth strategy, the Andhra Pradesh government
designated the Cyberabad Development Area (CDA) in 2001, covering an area of
52 square kilometres in the outer Serilingampally Municipality. The CDA was
masterplanned as a “model enclave” with high levels of infrastructure and public
services provision (Kennedy 2007, 102). This period also saw a major push
towards transport infrastructure development, with an expansion of the
suburban commuter train network to encompass these new western extensions
of the city, as well as the construction of the outer ring road.
Further plans to build a “knowledge corridor”, skirting the city along its
western, south-western and southern borders, as well as an international airport
in a designated Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HADA) plan area
evinced a clear resemblance to the megaprojects focus documented by Goldman
(2011) in the Bangalore case. Nonetheless, bringing to bear different theoretical
lenses on this growth strategy has allowed a different set of insights to emerge.
Employing a state rescaling framework (Module 1.5), Kennedy (2007,
106) argues that the CDA and HADA represent “‘‘glocal fixes’’, i.e. place-specific
production complexes, which are the outcome of a strategic approach to
infrastructure development that seeks to facilitate capital accumulation through
16
intense global-local interaction.” Thus, Kennedy’s work underlines the role of
“special purpose vehicles” in “positioning Hyderabad as a “competitive region”
since the era of liberalization” (Sood 2016a).
Urban Governance in Hyderabad Urban governance in contemporary Hyderabad, like other Indian cities
remains fragmented over multiple agencies. The spatial planning architecture in
Hyderabad has undergone radical change over the last decade. First, the CDA and
the HADA were dissolved in 2008 to form an integrated Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA). The premier planning agency for the
metropolitan region, the HMDA encompassed an area over ten times the GHMC,
making it the second largest urban development area in India after the Bangalore
Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Sood 2016). The formation of the
HMDA was preceded by the incorporation of GHMC in 2007, bringing together
12 pre-existing municipalities and eight Gram Panchayats into the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad (Kennedy 2014).
Political motivations may have guided such “territorial amalgamation”
(Scott 2001:4 quoted in Kennedy 2014:121). The GHMC helped undercut the
electoral dominance of the Hyderabad City-based Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen
(MIM) and created an autonomous administrative entity for the economically
significant Hyderabad region in anticipation of the split between Andhra Pradesh
and Telangana. Yet, the formation of the GHMC did not imply any major
devolution of decision-making power to the municipal body (Kennedy 2014);
indeed, much as in the case of Bangalore, state parastatals such as the APIIC
remained ascendant (Sood 2016). Kennedy (2014) has argued that the HITEC
City enclaves serve as a vehicle for “technocratic management”, and help keep
“competitive regions” protected from messy democratic claims.
More recent work in this vein by Sood (2016a) highlights the role of
specialized governance frameworks in facilitating such bypass of elected
municipal institutions. In Andhra Pradesh and Telangana state, the Industrial
Area Local Authority (IALA) represents one such instrument, which devolves
municipal powers, including the power to collect property taxes, and functions in
industrial areas to the state Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. This
17
devolution has faced serious contestation over property tax collections and
jurisdiction from the municipal corporation in recent years (Sood 2016a).
Neoliberal urbanism in Hyderabad? The scholarship on Hyderabad, though not as extensive as the literature
on Bangalore, provides a useful counterpoint to analyses generated by the latter.
In addition to the growing literature on urban governance, three arenas in which
urban scholarship on Hyderabad has contributed significant insight include first,
the real estate dynamics and tussles over tenure that shape the peri-urban
frontier; second, the transformations in urban ecology; third, the struggles over
land around mega infrastructure projects.
Maringanti’s (2013a) work highlights the labyrinthine system of land
tenure that complicates the project of real estate development on the rural-
urban interface in Hyderabad. In a scenario where a variety of land rights co-
exist and land records on the ground remain incorrect and incomplete, locally
embedded actors and communities become pivotal in attempts to convert
agricultural land on the urban fringe into new forms of property development
(Maringanti 2013a). In peri-urban Ghatsekar, site of Maringanti’s study, lavani
or D-form pattas predominate. These assign inheritable usufruct rights to
peasants, but cannot be sold to third parties. Negotiating the sale of these lands
to developers has thus emerged as a fast-growing source of employment in peri-
urban Hyderabad.
Other tensions around urban growth have emerged, as in Bangalore,
around the man-made system of lakes that have shaped Hyderabad (Maringanti
2011) (See also Module 6.6). Ramachandraiah and Prasad highlight the alarming
erosion of drinking water sources such as Hussainsagar, Osmansagar and
Himayatsagar by real estate encroachments and the damage done to lakes by
pollution.
Ramachandraiah (2009) has taken a more activist stance on the public–
private nexuses that shape contemporary Hyderabad. Focusing on the
repercussions of the collapse of the IT major Satyam on the metro rail project
headed by its real estate arm Maytas, Ramachandraiah (2009) argues that
inequitable forms of real estate development are the “knife-edge of neoliberal
urbanism” (See also Module 3.4). The infrastructure megaproject, and the tussles
18
it provokes, together thus comprise an important theme in the literature on
Hyderabad.
In Brief In the last two decades, Bangalore and Hyderabad have emerged as
quintessential new economy powerhouses. Their growth paths reveal the
economic forces that have shaped post-liberalization India. Not surprisingly,
these cities have also inspired a large body of research exploring the social,
economic and political ramifications of these dynamics. The explosive growth of
both cities in the last few decades exemplifies the trajectory of city-centric
growth strategies, yet scholars have brought to bear a variety of theoretical
frameworks to analyse these policy pathways.
The scholarship on Bangalore, in particular, has inspired powerful paradigmatic
analyses such as occupancy urbanism and speculative urbanism. This module
has attempted to explore the empirical grounding of these paradigms in
contemporary Bangalore. For example, Benjamin’s framing of occupancy
urbanism emerged from the remarkable contrast between the masterplanned
and non-masterplanned parts of Bangalore city, and the divergent economic and
political configurations they support.
Similarly Goldman’s analysis of speculative governance draws intimately on the
transformations that characterized urban governance landscape of Bangalore,
especially the increasing prominence of international financial institutions (IFI)
and elite taskforces, as well as the workings of IT firms.
Arguably, the polity of the princely states of Mysore and Hyderabad diverged
significantly from the colonial patterns manifested in the cities of Delhi, Mumbai,
Kolkata and Chennai. Nonetheless, neither Bangalore nor Hyderabad has
escaped from the logics of dualism that typify the Indian city. If the contrast
between masterplanned and non-masterplanned has emerged as a key axis of
polarization in Bangalore, in Hyderabad, too, the state promotion of the IT sector
has led to enduring schisms between Cyberabad and its older neighbour
Hyderabad. As exemplar par excellence of a city-centric growth strategy, the case
of Hyderabad has highlighted the governance, ecological, economic and spatial
correlates of IT-led growth.
19
Our survey of the literature on these emerging megacities has left untouched
many important strands, for instance Upadhya’s (2009, 2006, 2007)
ethnographic investigation of the IT workforce in Bangalore. Nonetheless, this
module has aimed to underline the key significance of these two cities in
manifesting the “knife-edge of neoliberal urbanism” (Ramachandraiah 2009).
.
References
Benjamin, S. and Raman, B., 2011. Illegible claims, legal titles, and the worlding of
Bangalore. Revue Tiers Monde, (2), pp.37-54.
Bunnell, T. and Das, D., 2010. Urban pulse—a geography of serial seduction:
urban policy transfer from Kuala Lumpur to Hyderabad. Urban
Geography, 31(3), pp.277-284.
Das, D. (2015). Hyderabad: Visioning, restructuring and making of a high-tech
city. Cities, 43, 48-58.
Ghosh, A., Kennedy, L., Ruet, J., Lama-Rewal, S.T. and Zérah, M.H., 2009. A
comparative overview of urban governance in Delhi, Hybderabad,
Kolkata, and Mumbai.
Goldman, M., 2011. Speculative urbanism and the making of the next world
city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(3), pp.555-
581.
Goldman, M., 2011. Speculating on the next world city. na.
Halbert, L. and Rouanet, H., 2014. Filtering risk away: global finance capital,
transcalar territorial networks and the (un) making of city-regions: an
analysis of business property development in Bangalore, India. Regional
Studies,48(3), pp.471-484.
20
Harvey, D., 1989. From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation
in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B.
Human Geography, pp.3-17.
Kamath, L., Baindur, V. and Rajan, P., 2008. Urban local government,
infrastructure planning and the urban poor: a study of peri-urban
Bangalore. Civic Bangalore and CASUMM.
Kennedy, L., 2007. Regional industrial policies driving peri-urban dynamics in
Hyderabad, India. Cities, 24(2), pp.95-109.
Kennedy, L., 2009. New patterns of participation shaping urban governance.
Governing India’s Metropolises: Case Studies of Four Cities, Routledge
India, New Delhi.
Kennedy, L., 2014. The Politics of Economic Restructuring in India: Economic
Governance and State Spatial Rescaling. Routledge.
Lama-Rewal, S.T., Zerah, M.H. and Dupont, V., 2011. Urban policies and the right
to the city in India: rights, responsibilities and citizenship.
Maringanti, A., 2011. No estoppel: claiming right to the city via the
commons. Economic & Political Weekly, 46(50), p.65.
Maringanti, A., 2013a. Rural Youths as Real Estate Entrepreneurs in Globalizing
Hyderabad. In Cleavage, Connection and Conflict in Rural, Urban and
Contemporary Asia (pp. 31-46). Springer Netherlands.
Maringanti, Anant, 2013b. Hyderabad’s Westward Journey. Times of India.
Nair, J., 2005. The promise of the metropolis: Bangalore's twentieth century.
Oxford University Press, USA.
Ramachandraiah, C., & Prasad, S., 2004. Impact of urban growth on water bodies:
The case of Hyderabad: Centre for Economic and Social Studies
Hyderabad.
21
Ramachandraiah, C., 2009. Maytas, Hyderabad metro and the politics of real
estate. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.36-40.
Ramachandraiah, C., 2014. Urban Mega Projects and Land Conversion in Peri-
urban Areas—Impact on Vegetable Production Due to Outer Ring Road in
Hyderabad, India. Environment and Urbanization Asia, 5(2), 319-335.
Ramachandraiah, C., and Sheela Prasad. "The Makeover of Hyderabad: Is it the
Model IT City?." High-Tech Urban Spaces: Asian and European Perspective,
Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi (2008): 293-318.
Rouanet, H. and Halbert, L., 2015. Leveraging finance capital: Urban change and
self-empowerment of real estate developers in India. Urban Studies.
Ruet, J. and Lama-Rewal, S.T. eds., 2012. Governing India's metropolises: case
studies of four cities. Taylor & Francis.
Sood, A. 2016a. Rule by exception? Zoning technologies in Hyderabad. Working
paper, Centre de Science Humaines, Delhi.
Sood, A., 2016b. Speculative Urbanism. Working paper.
Upadhya, C. and Vasavi, A.R., 2008. Outposts of the global information economy:
Work and workers in India’s outsourcing industry. In an outpost of the
global economy: Work and workers in India’s information technology
industry, pp.9-49.
Upadhya, C., 2007. Employment, exclusion and 'merit' in the Indian IT industry.
Economic and Political Weekly , pp.1863-1868.
Upadhya, C., 2009. India’s ‘new middle class’ and the globalising city: Software
professionals in Bangalore, India. In The New Middle Classes (pp. 253-
268). Springer Netherlands.
22